|
{spectacular domination: supervision for every(wo)man} claudia grinnell See, without being seen; observe, supervise, control. The topic of supervision snakes like a red thread through the history of mankind. Sometimes brutally and obviously, at other times extremely subtly yet nevertheless worrisome, the consistent need of state and corporate elements to monitor parts and even the whole of the population is one of the explicit principal reasons for a functioning social system. An eye is to be kept. And an I has to be kept as well. Any unaccounted-for I, a roaming, loose I, can quickly become a problem. Such an I may start to think thoughts or perform acts that interrupt the smooth operation of an enterprise that has other ideas. Supervision is not a purpose without an end, something which can exist without further justification. Supervision needs to be seen within a context and must remain therein. Supervision is part of a whole network of monitoring activities, embedded into another network of diverse mechanisms. Foucault explained the birth of the prison as the attempt to make this network understandable, visible. Foucault sees monitoring and its ideal forms, the "Panoptismus" as means and ways to disciplining a population who may have other visions (the supervision therefore supercedes all other visions). If the visions are shared, no problem. If the visions diverge, attempts at bringing the errant I back into fold are made through disciplinary measures. Discipline itself, of course, is an instrument of power. The powerless cannot discipline; they are recipients of discipline and expected to act in a disciplined manner, even if the supervisory elements consistently break the rules themselves. Managerial classes, nobility, functionaries of the state—all may announce and speak the rules, the code, the law, but many also feel entitled to break them. It is, after all, the rabble that needs to be kept in check. Foucault fathoms those social ranges within which supervision is not transparent, where monitoring functions subtly and mostly unidentified. In those instances, supervision appears as a natural condition or technical necessity and thus escapes critical attention. When power becomes standardized and forms the knowledge basis of modern society (this is the way it is, just do it), it becomes so internalized as to be invisible. Unquestionable. In the workplace, pre-employment drug tests (go pee in the cup) are the natural terminus of random drug tests that begin in schools where citizens are taught to sit in rows and perform well on standardized tests. Not much is required of the individual, only that he or she not be an individual. Any deviation from the norm—in clothing, intelligence, speech, activity—is both noted and punished if the individual becomes too much of an outlier. With the merger of private and public life nearly complete at the beginning of the 21st century, the normal escape mechanisms from standardized behaviors have vanished. The panoptic monitoring principle allows supervisors to implement discipline even during off-hours since every body is on and tuned in 24/7. The whole network is a fluid and gentle reminder to stay on task, to be productive, to consume, in order to keep the whole network working. Immersed as we are in the in/through/output of the network (there is only one, even though it may appear under different guises and differing codes), the spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images. The managerial classes have implemented the panoptic monitoring principle and the practices of the disciplining and long-reaching arm of authority, but it is certainly not the only place where monitoring takes place. Monitoring seems to be rather a total social syndrome, which--particularly in the last three decades—has undergone an uncanny process of dynamic expansion, much of which probably still lies ahead. The process has manifested in architecture, in the internet itself, in the data networking of large corporations, cell phones, large-scale terror fight systems in different cities. Monitoring is pervasive and sometimes, in the more questionable aspects, the reason for the necessity is not analyzed or questioned – we are doing this for your own good, to keep your safe, to keep our way of life – the parental, soothing tone of authority. An explicit, partial aspect of the total social context of monitoring and supervision, exhibits in the entertainment industry, specifically in the reality soaps. Big Brother suddenly morphs from the horror vision of the total supervisory apparatus, to a banal, boring component of the shallow evening television program: Big Bother. Thus defanged, it can better capture the interest of the viewer and the viewed. The exhibitive motives of some are matched with the voyeuristic impulses of the many. The question of why we like to watch is seldom raised, nor what kind of effect this constant watching has on the sensitivity of the viewer relative to the topic of supervision. Dominated and distracted as we are by the production and consumption of images, every aspect of existence experiences an invasion of, and eventual surrender to, the spectacle. Our channels of perception are perpetually set to receive; with so much so see, however, much is ignored. No wonder our senses are dulled, numbed. Many years ahead of this current crisis, in Illuminations, Walter Benjamin examines this idea of numbness when he suggests, “Reception is in a state of distraction,”and “The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one.” Our internal censors buffer intense, unpalatable, or indigestible images; a kind of numbing effect occurs that has, as its ultimate outcome, the need to ratchet up our definition of what exactly is intense, unpalatable, or indigestible. The fabricated “wardrobe malfunction” and its resultant nearly hysterical discussion served as a pressure valve release for a whole range of fabric malfunctions. The moral (out)rage was directed safely away from any real malfunctions, any material defects in the fabric of public life, toward a simulated and completely externalized hyperreality. Once again, the viewer, not really having a dog in that race, followed the self-righteous and fully scripted indignations performed on screen, in a kind of bemused absentmindedness, the mind having left the body some time ago, or at least since pictorial symbolism once again entered Western discourse after having been supplanted for a while by a rigid, linear, and abstract method of perception—the written text. The post-modern text is the image, but not just any image—rather the image of an image without any point of reference, free-floating in a sea of other images, all fiercely competitive for eyeballs to pay attention. In politics, especially, this image is what counts. J.F.K. knew that; Nixon, late, but eventually, did too. A narcissistic complicity whereby political candidates and their voters find likenesses in each other runs the political machine in very narrow channels. Televised debates and interviews resemble kabuki theater where the neatly homogenized and stylized actors lull the spectators into a willing suspension of critical faculty. Platitudes, clichés, and comforting homilies cascade one over the other in a race to determine who can say the least in the most amount of time. The mediated political spectacle does not require much commitment from the viewers. Regular intermissions allow for bathroom breaks, for trips to the fridge, and for channel surfing. What else is on? After the debate, the spinmeisters for each respective candidate dissect what was said and why. The spin: a merry-go-round until everyone’s dizzy, and all words cancel each other out. When necessary, here, too, the discourse and the imagery can be ratcheted up to perform their propaganda agenda, creating in the public’s consciousness a sense of perpetual crisis and stress, which, in turn, allows for total abdication of any responsibility for action (Father Knows Best = The Leader of the Free World = The Decider). The vacuum created by the withdrawal of the public from public activity in favor of conspicuous consumption is filled, on the one hand, by an expansion of executive powers, cloaked in secrecy – for our own good. On the other hand, the vacuum is filled with our addiction to stuff: both the brick and mortar and the virtual malls tempt the viewers with endless choices and two-for-one deals. If nothing else, one can at least shop victoriously! In the meantime, the complex systems we call economics, media, internet, military, entertainment, education and so forth have lost contact with most members of society, but have grown an intelligence of their own; in effect living independently of any interference from outside forces, more or less on autopilot. Action is not required, or is only required in action heroes on screen, and during any lull in the action, one can exercise free will and click to another channel where Arnold Schwarzenegger struts across the political stage in a fitting denouement to the electoral myth-making spectacle. Terminator and governor merge effortlessly on the freeways of Hollywood’s imagination. This is not a new trend, of course. One can find the adoration of the pictorial representation in virtually every aspect of the rituals performed in the Catholic Church. The cross, after all, represents the ultimate spectacle of dying for a cause. Pope Paul II understood this very well: the spectacle of his dying reified the Church as is. The spectacle is necessary for things to remain in place, to create a zone of inaction. Otherwise one might have entertained, and perhaps acted on, thoughts about nature and aims of his office. Any questioning of the spectacle itself leaves the questioner open to accusations of cynicism and malice. One might even suggest that the questioner is not quite human in his unwillingness to submit to the rules of engagement with the high drama enacted on his behalf. The public passion of the Pope, his suffering like Jesus’, his narrative of dying terminates in the public’s demand for his immediate sanctification. It speaks to the need disembody the spirit and to a wish for resurrection. In the post-industrial, neoliberal world of non-labor a body is no longer a necessity; it is a luxury, one that has to be brought into form through diet, exercise, and, if necessary, plastic surgery. The luxury on display in the show-me business is the facsimile of a body that could labor, that could give and receive pleasure, that could withstand attacks from within or without. It is the hyperreal body in glossy, full-color, photoshopped glory that insinuates and strengthens a fear of death. The spectacle of death is the final victory of the holy body over the decaying one. In the spirit thus sanctified, the body can be jettisoned, having fulfilled its destiny. By surrendering to the emotional demands of the spectacle, the public experiences itself as scene and being scene. The Cartesian duality undergirding all this reaches an obscene crescendo when airplanes crash into buildings on a clear blue and sunny day, staging the massacre as a media event, to be played and re-played. Those who carried out the attacks on New York and the Pentagon were right up to date, not only in technical terms. Inspired by the pictorial logic of Western symbolism, they staged the massacre as a media spectacle, adhering in minute detail to scenarios from disaster movies. Such an intimate understanding of American civilization hardly testifies to an anachronistic mentality. It is telling that many people watching television that morning thought they were watching a disaster movie. Completely paralyzed and mortified by fear, the American public had to be cajoled back to their number one duty: consumption—ya’ll go shopping more! This they did with near total abandon, grabbing all manner of consumable goods and services, loading up debt on plastic, banking on the never-ending expansion of wealth. What could possibly go wrong? Mortgage crisis, anyone? Thus encouraged, we all turn our cellphones and I-phones to interesting scenes, upload them the YouTube, and hope to become an overnight celebrity. “Don’t tase me, bro!” In addition to the thousands of surveillance cameras in all public spots on every possible square foot of earth (and don’t forget Google Earth!), the ubiquity of personal scene-taking-making-recording devices can be witnessed by the growth of video uploads at YouTube. I tube, you tube, we all scream for MY tube. The attention on the self, the narcissism—latent and otherwise—inherent in these incessant recording sessions is naturally the domain for another paper, but it should be pointed out that the increasingly important convergence (or at least coexistence) of "spectacle" and "surveillance" makes it possible, of course, both to see and be seen simultaneously and continuously. What makes today unique, however, is the merging or at least coexistence of the two, making it possible and among some people (even) desirable to see and be seen continuously and simultaneously. In the extreme, the potential becomes more real that society will (or at least can) be understood as nothing but a medium through which everybody can watch everybody all the time and across and throughout all space--nothing more than a totality of images and spectacular relationships. Perhaps a thought or two can be devoted to a society so bent on self-definition via hi-def images: what type of animal has to show its relevance to itself to believe…in its own existence? Imagine the sort of panic this animal might feel if the battery of the I-phone is empty, and the animal is rendered thus…invisible? The issue of information privacy and the potential terminal connection to something very much like Jeremy Bentham's model penitentiary, the "Panopticon”, will become a pressing issue to discuss with great urgency as electronic data gathering mechanisms travel and enter into our lives under the guise of ease of consumption. Individuals under an uncertain but invisible panoptic gaze exhibit a kind of anticipatory conformity with the rules, which become—eventually--internalized. Consider also that in the near future, nearly all merchandise will be equipped with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tracking so that every purchase you make emits a radio frequency from the store shelf, to your home, to the landfill. We want to consume, and if we have to offer ourselves up to the marketers in order to have our needs fulfilled, so be it, no? Or are we entering a tremendous clockwork, composed of ever smaller, ever more subtly 'adapted' gears, gears naturally adapted to our “meet our needs” – created and otherwise – but gears that will, nonetheless, one day grind us into finely consumable bits and bytes? Happy meals for all. The ability of complex societies to react to stimuli can be likened to frogs in warm water slowly being brought to a boil: if one were to throw such an amphibian into boiling water, the frog would want to escape this unpleasant environment and immediately try to leap out. If, however, one sets this sensitive animal carefully into a receptacle filled with water and increases the water’s temperature in small increments, the animal will tolerate the small changes to its environment, adjust to each incremental change, and finally stay put so long as to be too long. A sudden, strong change in living conditions of animal will result in a strong avoidance reaction such as flight or fight; however, if the change is introduced gradually, conditioning effects kick in which carry adverse long-term consequences. Such is the case, one should fear, with the current level of top-down supervision in hypermodern societies. While Orwell’s 1984 vision was understood a generation ago as a dystopic warning, the technical infrastructure vis a vis ubiquitous monitoring of individual and collective life at the beginning of the 21st century is mostly installed and only occasionally meets serious and organized resistance. This resistance can easily be marginalized in irrelevant retreats of legal minutae that can be thrown as peace offerings to whatever horde needs appeasement. After all, we have bigger fish to fry: the “fight” against criminal activity and disorder of many kinds in connection with a damaged sense of security, has led, in the advanced western societies, to acceptance and embrace of surveillance and supervision as principal mode of governance. Grand-scale video surveillance of semi-private and public spaces is just one obvious example of this trend. We are living in a society, composed of an unregulated, unchecked, and incomprehensible complex of small and large surveillance systems, which are, depending on necessity, reach, and cost, used by states agencies, businesses or private persons. In the near future, everyone will be potential security risk or surveillance target: if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about is the type of response often leveled at such opinions; however, it might be suggested that the response is one of a subject, not one of a citizen. Finally, we need to recognize that not only a formidable central control mechanism (for a long time, the state) continues to effect its growing possibilities of temporal and permanent surveillance; even the sub-centers of social power are deploying the possibilities of electronically-mediated surveillance: big business and small business and sometimes even better-situated individuals all have vested interests to keep the levers of control firmly in their hands and away from uncontrolled and unsupervised masses. In post-liberal, hyper-moden societies suspicions run deep; supervisors and suspects alike train their eyes on each other, and thus, Big Brother divides into cells and returns into society from its priviledged spot at the top. The many separate and often decentralized control and surveillance systems are now set to congeal into a surveillance-density of a new order and quality, materially different in its technology-mediated power from anything we have seen before. A whole generation of children is growing up supervised by nannycams and babyphones and growing into Iphones and webcams at school. Not only the criminally-minded but any adventurous teenager can be chipped and nicely tracked. Do you know where your child is? The warning potential inherent in Big Brother diminishes in a generation only familiar with the t.v. show. As long as surveillance is accepted by a large marjority of the population as a necessary evil to combat an even greater evil (disorder, terrorism), it will be accepted as a new trivial aspect of everyday life. Should economic and political developments deteriorate to the point of substantially disrupting comfort levels, this acceptance might quickly erode, especially if surveillance once again drops its (false) face of providing security and comes into relief as the technocratic attempt to manage and possibly extending conflicts rather than solving them. For the time, let’s not underestimate the frog; perhaps he will notice in due time what is coming and what is happening… |
